M11M Why Not Slow Small Lenses?

[BWColor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recent equipment purchases made me realize that I have to sell some cameras/lenses and I’m asking myself if I need ultra fast lenses.  I’m specifically thinking about my Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZM, Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f/1.2 and Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH.. In each category I have quality smaller, but slower lenses.  Technology allows me to consider this new strategy.  The unbelievable high iso capabilities of the M11M (my only non-film Leica) make even night time capture a breeze with slower lenses.  The new background blur technology within Lightroom Classic, when applied with moderation, is rather impressive.  Some of the early issues seem to be resolved.  I rarely use film, where these lenses have been of great value.  Anyone else thinking about this issue.  I suspect not in that most continue to use cameras with Bayer sensors and a stop or two poorer ISO performance.

Quote

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rclompus]

This is an interesting question. Newer sensors with higher ISO capabilities raise the issue of using slower smaller lenses with the option of creating background blur in post. One of the main benefits of faster lenses (especially f1.2, f1, f0.95) are the optical aberrations that are inherent in their design.  It’s like getting “two lenses in one”. Wide open, contrast is often lower along with spherical aberration and significant bokeh.  Stoped down two stops, the same lenses sharpen, improve contrast and begin to lessen background blur.  Some of my most interesting photos were taken with the 50/1 Noctilux that may have been a bit boring with a 2.8 aperture.  It’s always a bit of a pain to carry a fast heavy lens but sometimes the images you capture are worth the effort.  I also have slower favorites for street photography, such as Voigtlander’s 50/3.5 Heliar and 40/2.8 are a charm to use where depth of field is your friend.  Small lenses are delightful with an M camera - as well as heavy, large fast lenses.  And I am grateful for both.  

Be well,  Richard Clompus

[lct]

Compact fast lenses have been made by Leica for more than half a century. Sure they are expensive but there are more affordable competitors. No need to use artificial blur or extreme isos with lenses like CV 35/1.4, 50/1.5 or 75/1.5 to name a few. We could do it with tiny f/2 lenses on Kodachrome 25 in my youth and the same little gems can do marvels at 100 iso or less on digital. YMMV.

Edited August 31, 2024 by lct

[yanidel]

Dos the Lightroom background blur technology also work with foregrounds? I find that super fast lenses are great at isolating a subject between planes. 

Even then, I find it somehow odd to buy gear worth thousands of dollars and add artificial blur. It just feels wrong.  

[BWColor]

6 minutes ago, yanidel said:

Dos the Lightroom background blur technology also work with foregrounds? I find that super fast lenses are great at isolating a subject between planes. 

Even then, I find it somehow odd to buy gear worth thousands of dollars and add artificial blur. It just feels wrong.  

Good points all around but the technology is just beginning. I also find it odd to buy gear worth thousands of dollars and add artificial blur.  That said, we’re entering a time when many images may be wholly created in cyberspace.

[BWColor]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Compact fast lenses have been made by Leica for more than half a century. Sure they are expensive but there are more affordable competitors. No need to use artificial blur or extreme isos with lenses like CV 35/1.4, 50/1.5 or 75/1.5 to name a few. We could do it with tiny f/2 lenses on Kodachrome 25 in my youth and the same little gems can do marvels at 100 iso or less on digital. YMMV.

All true, but high quality slower lenses are generally smaller, lighter and less expensive than fast lenses of similar quality.  One lens that I really like that is very small and works perfectly with my M11M is the Zeiss 21mm Biogon c ZM.  I have faster, but not better for my use.

Edited August 31, 2024 by BWColor
Added comment

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don’t have the m11m, but the m10m. Next to some 50mm, I have the 28mm summaron and a 40mm heliar. The latter two nicely tiny which makes the m a wonderful set to take with me on a trip. With both, the game of layering an image is great fun.

[lct]

4 hours ago, BWColor said:

All true, but high quality slower lenses are generally smaller, lighter and less expensive than fast lenses of similar quality.  One lens that I really like that is very small and works perfectly with my M11M is the Zeiss 21mm Biogon c ZM.  I have faster, but not better for my use.

I like much the ZM 21/4.5 too but you referred to 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses in your OP. Background blur with a 21mm lens is something i can get only on closeups.

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, BWColor said:

All true, but high quality slower lenses are generally smaller, lighter and less expensive than fast lenses of similar quality.  One lens that I really like that is very small and works perfectly with my M11M is the Zeiss 21mm Biogon c ZM.  I have faster, but not better for my use.

The Biogon C 35 is equally good on M onochromes

[a.noctilux]

Small (too) lens can have unexpected drawbacks with M.

Mainly wide angle like Summaron-M 28mm.

Like here

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[costa43]

Adding blur is a creative step too far for me but I know it’s popular with many, I just like to get the fall off and bokeh that the lens is designed to give, it’s part of my joy, especially with vintage glass.

Regarding size, you can have your cake and eat it really and find some that are small and quite fast. I class fast as f2 and below in my mind so pretty much any Summicron or pre asph Summilux fit the bill along with a fair few from 3rd parties. 

[UliWer]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb a.noctilux:

Small (too) lens can have unexpected drawbacks with M.

Mainly wide angle like Summaron-M 28mm.

Yes, therefore one should always have a hood even on a small lens. If it doesn‘t help against the sun, it will at least prevent your fingers being at wrong places.

[swatch]

The downside of relying more and more on software to create a photography (ie make background blur digitally) is users need to learn new skills in editing and significantly more time spent on editing each photo (I am being a person enjoy taking photos more than editing photos)

Trade off is always part of photographic life.

 

[lct]

Can be fast but gives an artificial look to photos. Better than nothing on a smartphone but quite a pity on a Leica. Suffice it to open apertures, fast shutter speeds make it easier than ever.

[Lee S]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:21 AM, jaapv said:

The Biogon C 35 is equally good on M onochromes

The 35mm C-Biogon is razor sharp with incredible contrast! Just wish the focus nub was a proper tab. 

[JoshuaR]

The problem with the artificial bokeh algorithms is that they're ... artificial. At least for me, that's very undesirable.

My most-used lens on my M10M is the 50 f/2.5 Summarit. It's small and handy and I find that the somewhat nervous bokeh actually looks great in black and white. I pair it with the 28 Elmarit ASPH. I use faster lenses, too, but overall I'd say that the slower lenses could be my only lenses, not just on the monochrome but on my M10-R, which is good enough in low light.

[BWColor]

7 hours ago, lct said:

Can be fast but gives an artificial look to photos. Better than nothing on a smartphone but quite a pity on a Leica. Suffice it to open apertures, fast shutter speeds make it easier than ever.

Is this true?  It certainly can be true.  This is a trade-off.  I assume that added blur would be used to provide a minor amount of blur and be used with very few images.  I’m usually ok shooting with a 35mm Voightlander APO Lanthar at f/2.0 vs using my Zeiss Distagon ZM  at f/1.4.  Occasionally, I will add blur.  My most recent use was when I shot s family portrait in a small space.

[lct]

Matter of taste. I don't like images where anything is sharp personally. Optical blur has been used since fast lenses exist and helps getting what one calls bokeh and pop effect. For family snaps, i find f/2 fast enough in most cases and i don't shoot above f/2 if i can avoid it but it depends on focal length and it is a matter of taste obviously. FWIW.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[RexGig0]

Background blur may be fake-able, with software, but, what about the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, either on the subject, or intermediate-distance objects? Then, as mentioned by @yanidel , there are times that foreground blur may be desirable. In my personal case, I not only want my image to be as “right” as practicable, at the moment of capture, I simply dislike post-processing, because computers annoy me. The less time spent at a computer, the better. My computer mouse died, months ago; maybe last year. I have yet to replace it. (I am typing this on an iPad.)

On the other hand, a lens that is sitting unused, is a viable candidate for passing along to another shooter. I cannot imagine letting a Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1,4 ZM sitting unused, but, that is a personal matter.

[burchyk]

I'm at a point where I don't find pronounced blur more interesting than a good composition with most of the frame legible. Prefer to use deep shadows and framing to isolate subject instead. On film quite often find myself thinking that if the light is too low for a photo without pushing and fast lenses it may not be a photo I am keen on taking. Big heavy lenses and bulky cameras was the reason I took a break from photography years ago. YMMV.